Man forced to find home or euthanize 10 year old snakehead

BreellaBlue87 said:
It's rather sad that they're going after the responsible owners for the irresponsible owners transgressions.
Click to expand...

Same thing has been happening to pit bull owners. thats where they saying "punish the deed not the breed" came from.
 
Winged said:
He's had it before it was illegal to own one. Wouldn't that make it still legal for him to own it? I don't know all the laws pertaining to this sort of thing, but I do know that certain laws allow for "grandfathering" (or whatever the proper form of the word would be). Wouldn't this be a case where the grandfather clause stood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause (Note the section "Law" and the fifth bullet point in that section.)
Click to expand...
x2
 
Actually the idea of poisoning the water that a walking fish is in to kill it sounds moronic. You'll kill all the fish except for the ones you are trying to kill. Those walking fish you plan to kill will just climb out of the poisoned water and travel around to new spots. Looking at the spread of this fish, it seemed very likely that it was the non-thinking approach by wildlife agencies that spread this fish around so rapidly. Just a tiny bit of thought would have come up with at least trying to fence in the pond to prevent escapees before poisoning the water.
 
they built a sandbag wall around the pond first then nuked it-Anne
 
Many laws are mandated to be retroactive and that Grandfathering will not apply. This is usually done in instances of nuisance animals and such. Guess he po'd the wrong person and they turned him in.
 
excuzzzeme said:
Many laws are mandated to be retroactive and that Grandfathering will not apply. This is usually done in instances of nuisance animals and such. Guess he po'd the wrong person and they turned him in.
Click to expand...

And that last sentence right there is why humanity sucks. I'm pretty sure that has to be the case if he's had it for over 10 years, much of which the species has been illegal...
 
Blackstar65 said:
That sucks. Don't give them the satisfaction and eat it.
Click to expand...
lol.

It is a shame... the whole snakehead "crisis" was ridiculous. From all that I have read on snakeheads (I have never been able to keep them personally), only young C. argus (northern snakeheads, which were in the MD pond) are able to travel over land, and it is hardly an easy journey for them.. I doubt they could travel a significant distance. The ban on the entire genus strikes me as a product of laziness.

And for whoever suggested it- wouldn't it still be illegal for a MFK member to take the fish? The snakehead ban prohibits importation, sales, ownership, and transportation over states line.

That fish is ten years old, but only 28" as compared to the average of 36"... possible example of growth stunting?..
 
Im seriously thinking about drating a petition..not that I think it would do much good.. :-( He should be able to keep it. Grandfather claus or not, this really isnt right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom